請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16553完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳建仁 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wan-Ching Lien | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 連琬菁 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-07T18:20:29Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-03-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-01-09 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Williams GR. Presidential Address: A history of appendicitis. With anecdotes illustrating its importance. Ann Surg. 1983;197:495-506.
2. Fitz RH. Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix. . Am J Med Sci. 1886;92:321-46. 3. McBurney C. Experiences with early operative interference in cases of disease of the vermiform appendix. N Y Med J. 1889;50:676-84. 4. Primatesta P, Goldacre MJ. Appendicectomy for acute appendicitis and for other conditions: an epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23:155-60. 5. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:910-25. 6. Körner H, Söreide JA, Pedersen EJ, Bru T, Söndenaa K, Vatten L. Stability in incidence of acute appendicitis. A population-based longitudinal study. Dig Surg. 2001;18:61-6. 7. Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP. Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg. 1997;225:252-61. 8. Körner H, Söndenaa K, Söreide JA, et al. Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg. 1997;21:313-7. 9. Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA, Haley RW. Disconnet between incidence of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management. Ann Surg. 2007;245:886-92. 10. Ergul E. Heredity and familial tendency of acute appendicitis. Scand J Surg. 2007;96:290-2. 11. Basta M, Morton NE, Mulvihill JJ, Radovanović Z, Radojicić C, Marinković D. Inheritance of acute appendicitis: familial aggregation and evidence of polygenic transmission. Am J Hum Genet. 1990;46:377-82. 12. Andersson N, Griffiths H, Murphy J, et al. Is appendicitis familial? Br Med J. 1979;2:697-8. 13. Adamidis D, Roma-Giannikou E, Karamolegou K, Tselalidou E, Constantopoulos A. Fiber intake and childhood appendicitis. Int J Food Sci Nutr. . 2000;51:153-7. 14. Ergul E, Ucar AE, Ozgun YM, Korukluoglu B, Kusdemir A. Family history of acute appendicitis. J Pak Med Assoc. 2008;58:635-7. 15. Buschard K, Kjaeldgaard A. Investigation and analysis of the position, fixation, length and embryology of the vermiform appendix. Acta Chir Scand. 1973;139:293-8. 16. Guidry SP, Poole GV. The anatomy of appendicitis. Am Surg. 1994;60:68-71. 17. Yabunaka K, Katsuda T, Sanada S, Fukutomi T. Sonographic Appearance of the Normal Appendix in Adults. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:37-43. 18. Bowers WF. Appendicitis, with special reference to pathogenesis, bacteriology and healing. Arch Surg. 1939;39:362-422. 19. Wangensteen OH, Bowers WF. Significance of the obstructive facor in the genesis of acute appendicitis: experimental study. Arch Surg. 1937;34:496-526. 20. Arnbjornsson E, Bengmark S. Role of obstruction in the pathogenesis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg. 1984;147:390-2. 21. Sisson RG, Ahlvin RC, Harlow MC. Superficial mucosal ulceration and the pathogenesis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg. 1971;122:378-80. 22. Jones BA, Demetriades D, Segal I, Burkitt DP. The prevalence of appendiceal fecaliths in patients with and without appendicitis. A comparative study from Canada and South Africa. Ann Surg. . 1985;202:80-2. 23. Green SM, Schmidt SP, Rothrock SG. Delayed appendicitis from an ingested foreign body. Am J Emerg Med. 1994;12:53-6. 24. Hermans JJ, Hermans AL, Risseeuw GA, Verhaar JC, Meradji M. Appendicitis caused by carcinoid tumor. Radiology. 1993;188:71-2. 25. Graffeo CS, Counselman FL. Appendicitis. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1996;14:653-71. 26. Gearhart SL, Silen W. Acute appendicitis and peritonitis. Harrison's principles of internal medicine. 17th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008:1914-7. 27. Andersson R, Hugander A, Thulin A, Nystrom PO, Olaison G. Clusters of acute appendicitis: further evidence for an infection etiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1995;24:829-33. 28. Liu K, Fogg L. Use of antibiotics alone for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2011;150:673-83. 29. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology. 2000;215:337-48. 30. Wagner JM, McKinney WP, Carpenter JL. Does this patient have appendicitis? JAMA. 1996;276:1589-94. 31. Sun JS, Noh HW, Min YG, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of the diagnostic performance of a computed tomographic examination and the Alvarado score for diagnosing acute appendicitis: emphasis on age and sex of the patients. . J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32:386-91. 32. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15:557-64. 33. Ohmann C, Yang Q, Franke C. Diagnostic scores for acute appendicitis: Abdominal Pain Study Group. Eur J Surg. 1995;161:273-81. 34. Macklin CP, Radcliffe GS, Merei JM, Stringer MD. A prospective evaluation of the modified Alvarado score for acute appendicitis in children. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79:203-5. 35. Al-Hashemy AM, Seleem MI. Appraisal of the modified Alvarado Score for acute appendicits in adults. Saudi Med J. 2004;25:1229-31. 36. Impellizzeri P, Centonze A, Antonuccio P, et al. Utility of a scoring system in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pediatric age. A retrospective study. Minerva Chir. 2002;57:341-6. 37. Andersson M, Andersson RE. The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg. 2008;32:1843-9. 38. Flum DR, McClure TD, Morris A, Koepsell T. Misdiagnosis of appendicitis and the use of diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:933-9. 39. Jeffrey RB, Jr. , Laing FC, Townsend RR. Acute appendicitis: sonographic criteria based on 250 cases. Radiology. 1988;167:327-9. 40. Abu-Yousef MM, Bleicher JJ, Maher JW, Urdaneta LF, Franken EA, Jr., Metcalf AM. High-resolution sonography of acute appendicitis. . Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149:53-8. 41. Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:666-9. 42. Puylaert JB. US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology. 1986;158:355-60. 43. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, Clautice-Engle TL, Mindelzun RE, Jeffrey RBJ. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:405-9. 44. Rao PM, Rhea J, Novelline RA, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology. . 1997;202:139-44. 45. Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB, Jr. , Mindelzun RE, Katz DS. Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology. . 1999;213:341-6. 46. Eriksson S, Tiesell A, Granstrom L. Ultrasonographic findings after conservative treatment of acute appendicitis and open appendicectomy. Acta Radiologica. 1995;36:173-7. 47. Migraine S, Atri M, Bret PM, Lough JO, Hinchey JE. Spontaneously resolving acute appendicitis: clinical and sonographic documentation. Radiology. 1997;205:55-8. 48. Karaca I, Altintoprak Z, Karkiner A, Temir G, Mir E. The managment of appendiceal mass in children: is interval appendectomy necessary? Surg Today. 2001;31:675-7. 49. Keyzer C, Zalcman M, de Maertelaer V, et al. Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology. 2005;236:527-34. 50. van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology. 2008;249:97-106. 51. Poortman P, Lohle PN, Schoemaker CM, et al. Comparison of CT and sonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a blinded prospective study. Am J Roentgenol. . 2003;181:1355-9. 52. Wise SW, Labuski MR, Kasales CJ, et al. Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:933-41. 53. Balthazar EJ, Rofsky NM, Zucker R. Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Am J Gastroenterol. . 1998;93:768-71. 54. Schuler JG, Shortsleeve MJ, Goldenson RS, Perez-Rossello JM, Perlmutter RA, Thorsen A. Is there a role for abdominal computed tomographic scans in appendicitis? Arch Surg. 1998;133:373-6. 55. Ooms HW, Koumans RK, Ho Kang You PJ, Puylaert JB. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1991;78:315-8. 56. Ravdin IS, Rhoads BA, Lockwood JS. The use of sulfonamides in the treatment of peritonitis associated with appendictis. Ann Surg. 1940;1111:53-63. 57. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg. 1992;58:264-9. 58. McBurney C. The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of a new method of operating. Ann Surg. 1894;20:38-43. 59. Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg. 2004;239:43-52. 60. Zimmerman MA, Selzman CH, Cothren C, Sorensen AC, Raeburn CD, Harken AH. Diagnostic implications of C-reactive protein. Arch Surg. 2003;138:220-4. 61. Pedersen AG, Petersen OB, Wara P, Rønning H, Qvist N, Laurberg S. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg. . 2001;88:200-5. 62. de Wilde RL. Goodbye to late bowel obstruction after appendicectomy. Lancet. 1991;338:1012. 63. Moazzez A, Mason RJ, Katkhouda N. Laparoscopic appendectomy: new concepts. World J Surg. 2011;35:1515-8. 64. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg. 2005;242:439-48. 65. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002:CD001546. 66. Heinzelmann M, Simmen HP, Cummins AS, Largiadèr F. Is laparoscopic appendectomy the new 'gold standard'? Arch Surg. 1995;130:782-5. 67. Tate JJ, Chung SC, Dawson J, et al. Conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1993;80:761-4. 68. Vallina VL, Velasco JM, McCulloch CS. Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy. Ann Surg. 1993;218:686-92. 69. Larsson PG, Henriksson G, Olsson M, et al. Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendicectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women. A randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2001;15:200-2. 70. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:141-6. 71. Aziz O, Athanasiou T, Tekkis PP, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2006;243:17-27. 72. Hoehne F, Ozaeta M, Sherman B, Miani P, Taylor E. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: is the postoperative infectious complication rate different? Am Surg. . 2005;71:813-5. 73. Harrell AG, Lincourt AE, Novitsky YW, et al. Advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly. Am Surg. 2006;72:474-80. 74. Mancini GJ, Mancini ML, Nelson HS, Jr. . Efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in appendicitis with peritonitis. Am Surg. 2005;71:1-4. 75. Yagmurlu A, Vernon A, Barnhart DC, Georgeson KE, Harmon CM. Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1051-4. 76. Wei HB, Huang JL, Zheng ZH, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:266-9. 77. Wu SC, Wang YC, Fu CY, et al. Laparoscopic appendectomy provides better outcomes than open appendectomy in elderly patients. Am Surg. 2011;77:466-70. 78. Swank HA, Eshuis EJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA. Short- and long-term results of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. World J Surg. 2011;35:1221-6. 79. Kapischke M, Friedrich F, Hedderich J, Schulz T, Caliebe A. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy--quality of life 7 years after surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2011;396:69-75. 80. Rehman H, Rao AM, Ahmed I. Single incision versus conventional multi-incision appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD009022. 81. Lasson A, Lundagards J, Loren I, Nilsson PE. Appendiceal abscesses: primary percutaneous drainage and selective interval appendectomy. Eur J Surg. 2002;168:264-9. 82. Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I, et al. Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2006;30:1033-7. 83. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg. 2009;96:473-81. 84. Andersson RE. Small bowel obstruction after appendicectomy. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1387-91. 85. Harrison PW. Appendicitis and antibiotics. Am J Surg. 1953;85:160-3. 86. Coldrey E. Five years of conservative treatment of acute appendicitis. J Int Coll Surg. 1959;32:255-61. 87. Eriksson S, Granstrom L. Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1995;82:166-9. 88. Oliak D, Yamini D, Udani VM, et al. Initial nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44(7):936-41. 89. Vargas HI, Averbook A, Stamos MJ. Appendiceal mass: conservative therapy followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Am Surg. 1994;60:753-8. 90. Hoffmann J, Lindhard A, Jensen HE. Appendix mass: conservative management without interval appendectomy. Am J Surg 1984;148:379-82. 91. Skoubo-Kristenson E, Hvid I. The appendiceal mass: results of conservative management. Ann Surg. 1982;196:584-7. 92. Paull DL, Bloom GP. Appendiceal abscess. Arch Surg. 1982;117:1017-9. 93. Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB. Spontaneously resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients. Radiology. 2000;215:349-52. 94. Norman JC. Appendicitis in submariners. US Armed Forces Med J. 1959;10:689-92. 95. Rice BH. Conservative non-surgical management of appendicitis. Mil Med. 1964.;129:903-20. 96. Osborne SF. Medical diagnosis aboard submarines. J Occup Med. 1984;26:110-4. 97. Lugg DJ. Antarctic medicine 1775-1975. Med J Austral. 1975;2:335-7. 98. Lugg DJ. Antarctic medicine. JAMA. 2000;283:2002-5. 99. Campbell MR. Surgical care in space—a review. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:802-12. 100. Newkirk D. Almanac of Soviet manned space flight Houston. TX: Gulf Publishing. 1990:47-74. 101. Andersson RE. The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis. World J Surg. 2007;31:86-92. 102. Varadhan KK, Humes DJ, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2010;34:199-209. 103. Simillis C, Symeonides P, Shorthouse AJ, Tekkis PP. A meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon). Surgery. 2010;147:818-29. 104. Tsai HM, Shan YS, Lin PW, Lin XZ, Chen CY. Clinical analysis of the predictive factors for recurrent appendicitis after initial nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis. Am J Surg. 2006;192:311-6. 105. Ho CM, Chen Y, Lai HS, Lin WH, Hsu WM, Chen WJ. Comparison of critical conservative treatment versus emergency operation in children with ruptured appendicitis with tumor formation. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004;103:359-63. 106. Emil S, Duong S. Antibiotic therapy and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children: a selective approach. Am Surg. 2007;73:917-22. 107. Friedell ML, Perez-Izquierdo M. Is there a role for interval appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis? Am Surg. 2000;66:1158-62. 108. Whyte C, Levin T, Harris BH. Early decisions in perforated appendicitis in children: lessons from a study of nonoperative management. J Pediatr Surg. 2008;43:1459-63. 109. Henry MC, Gollin G, Islam S, et al. Matched analysis of nonoperative management vs immdediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42:19-24. 110. Bufo A, Shah R, Li M, et al. Interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998;8:209-14. 111. Mazziotti MV, Marley EF, Winthrop PG, Fitzgerald PG, Walton M, Langer JC. Histopathologic analysis of interval appendectomy specimens: support for the role of interval appendectomy. J Pediatr Surg. 1997;32:806-9. 112. Nitecki S, Assalia A, Schein M. Contemporary management of the appendiceal mass. Br J Surg. 1993;80:18-20. 113. Samuel M, Holmes K. Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37:882-6. 114. Emil S, Duong S. Antibiotic therapy and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children: a selective approach. Am Surg. 2007;73:917-21. 115. Willemsen PJ, Hoorntje IE, Eddes EH, Ploeg RJ. The need for interval appendectomy after resolution of an appendiceal mass questioned. Dig Surg 2002;19:216-22. 116. Price MR, Hasse GM, Sartorelli KH, Meagher DP, Jr. Recurrent appendicitis after initial conservative treatment of appendiceal abscess J Pediatr Surg. 1996;31:291-4. 117. Kaminski A, Liu IL, Applebaum H, Lee SL, Haigh PI. Routine interval appendectomy is not justified after initial nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg. 2005;140:897-901. 118. Stelzmueller I, Bonatti H, Dunst KM. Recurrent appendicitis after conservative management of perityphlitic abscess: report of two cases. Int Surg. 2009;94:27-30. 119. Weber TR, Keller MA, Bower RJ, Spinner G, Vierling K. Is delayed operative treatment worth the trouble with perforated appendicitis is children? Am J Surg. 2003;186:685-8. 120. Kogut KA, Blakely ML, Schropp KP, et al. The association of elevated percent bands on admission with failure and complications of interval appendectomy. J Pediatr Surg. 2001;36:165-8. 121. Nadler EP, Reblock KK, Vaughan KG, Meza MP, Ford HR, Gaines BA. Predictors of outcome for children with perforated appendicitis initially treated with non-operative management. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2004;5:349-56. 122. Aprahamian CJ, Barnhart DC, Bledsoe SE, Vaid Y, Harmon CM. Failure in the nonoperative managament of pediatric ruptured apendicitis: predictors and consequences. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42:934-8. 123. Lavin T, Whyte C, Borzykowski R, Han B, Blitman N, Harris B. Nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis in children: can CT predict outcome? Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37:251-5. 124. Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, Lesnik A, Blayac PM, Pujol J. Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings. . Radiology. 2004;230:472-8. 125. Johansson EP, Rydh A, Riklund KA. Ultrasound, computed tomography, and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:267-73. 126. Heller MB, Skolnick ML. Ultrasound documentation of spontaneously resoving appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:51-3. 127. Oliak D, Sinow R, French S, Udani V, Stamos M. Computed tomography scanning for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Am Surg. 1999;65:959-64. 128. Tsukada K, Miyazaki T, Katoh H, et al. CT is useful for identifying patients with complicated appendicitis. Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:195-8. 129. Yabunaka K, Katsuda T, Sanada S, Yatake H, Fukutomi T. Sonographic examination of the appendix in acute infectious enteritis and acute appendicitis. J Clin Ultrasound. . 2008;36:63-6. 130. Eriksson S, Tiesell A, Granstrom L. Ultrasonographic findings after conservative treatment of acute appendicitis and open appendicectomy. Acta Radiol. 1995;36:173-7. 131. Heller M, Skolnick M. Ultrasound documentation of spontaneously resoving appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:51-3. 132. Yabunaka K, Katsuda T, Sanada S, Fukutomi T. Sonographic appearance of the normal appendix in adults. J Ultrasound Med. . 2007;26:37-43. 133. Lee M, Kim Y, Jeon H, Park S, Jung S, Yi J. Sonography of acute right lower quadrant pain: importance of increased intraabdominal fat echo. AJR. 2009;192:174-9. 134. Jordan JS, Kovalcik PJ, Schwab CW. Appendicitis with a palpable mass. Ann Surg. 1981;193:227-9. 135. Bufo AJ, Shah RS, Li MH, et al. Interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1998;8:209-14. 136. Vane DW, Fernandez N. Role of interval appendectomy in the management of complicated appendicitis in children. World J Surg. 2006;30:51-4. 137. Price M, Haase G, Sartorelli K, Meagher DJ. Recurrent appendicitis after initial conservative management of appendiceal abscess. J Pediatr Surg. 1996;31:291-4. 138. Brown CV AM, Muller M, Velmahos GC. Appendiceal abscess: immediate operation or percutaneous drainage? Am Surg. 2003;69(10):829-32. 139. Tsai H-M, Shan Y-S, Lin P-W, Lin X-Z, Chen C-Y. Clinical analysis of the predictive factors for recurrent appendicitis after initial nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis. Am J Surg. 2006;192:311-6. 140. Andersson RE, Petzold MG. Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon. Ann Surg. 2007;246:741-8. 141. Migeon BR. The role of X-inactivation and cellular mosaicism in women's health and sex-specific diseases. JAMA. 2006;295:1428-33. 142. Ross MT, Grafham DV, Coffey AJ, et al. The DNA sequence of the human X chromosome. Nature. 2005;434:325-37. 143. Sadr Azodi O A-SA, Larsson H. Genetic and environmental influences on the risk of acute appendicitis in twins. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1336-40. 144. Wong M, Jiang J, Griffiths S. Factors associated with antihypertensive drug compliance in 83,884 Chinese patients: a cohort study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64:895-901. 145. Kriegshauser K, Sajatovic M, Jenkins J, et al. Gender differences in subjective experience and treatment of bipolar disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2010;198:370-2. 146. Tekin A, Kurtoglu HC, Can I, Oztan S. Routine interval appendectomy is unnecessary after conservative treatment of appendiceal mass. Colorectal disease. 2007;10:465-8. 147. Gillick J, Velayudham M, Puri P. Conservative management of appendix mass in children. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1539-42. 148. Befeler D. Recurrent appendicitis. Incidence and prophylaxis. Arch Surg. 1964;89:666-8. 149. Shindoh J, Niwa H, Kawai K, et al. Predictive factors for negative outcomes in initial non-operative management of suspected appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:309-14. 150. Rubér M, Berg A, Ekerfelt C, Olaison G, Andersson RE. Different cytokine profiles in patients with a history of gangrenous or phlegmonous appendicitis. Clin Exp Immunol. 2006;143:117-24. 151. Joiner KA, Lowe BR, Dzink JL, Bartlett JG. Antibiotic levels in infected and sterile subcutaneous abscess in mice. J Infect Dis. 1981;143:487-94. 152. Brown CV, Abrishami M, Muller M, Velmahos GC. Appendiceal abscess: immediate operation or percutaneous drainage? Am Surg. 2003;69(10):829-32. 153. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K. Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Brit J Surg. 2009;96:473-81. 154. Aprahamian CJ, Barnhart DC, Bledsoe SE, Vaid Y, Harmon CM. Failure in the nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appedncitis: predictors and consequences. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42:934-8. 155. Varadhan KK, Humes DJ, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. World J Surg. 2010;34:199-209. 156. Maver M, Wells H. Composition of appendiceal concentrations. Arch Surg. 1921;3:439-44. 157. Tsai H, Shan Y, Lin P, Lin X, Chen C. Clinical analysis of the predictive factors for recurrent appendicitis after initial nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis. Am J Surg. 2006;192:311-6. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/16553 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在過去一百多年來,緊急闌尾切除術已成為治療急性闌尾炎的治療準則,然而,近年來已有不少研究論文顯示:急性闌尾炎亦可以經由非手術療法得到不錯的療效,然而因大多數的研究均屬於回溯性研究,鮮少前瞻性追蹤;再者,研究對象多集中在兒童,鮮少關於成人,因此本論文針對成人罹患急性闌尾炎、經由非手術療法之臨床特質及預後進行研究分析,收案時間自2003年1月至2009年12月,收案地點在臺大醫院,共有132位急性闌尾炎病患接受非手術療法治療。
本論文共分為四個子研究: 研究一:急性闌尾炎病患,決定接受緊急闌尾切除術或非手術療法,其臨床因子之對照研究 背景 針對急性闌尾炎病患,研究有無臨床因子決定病患接受緊急闌尾切除術或非手術療法。 方法 本研究採用病例對照研究,依據病患年紀(±5歲內)、性別及到院時間(±3個月內)進行配對,每個個案會有兩個對照組(接受手術者),並以條件式羅吉斯迴歸模式進行統計分析。 結果 共有131位病患及262位對照組,經由多變項分析下,顯示疼痛時間較長勝算比, 1.48; 95%信賴區間, 1.20-1.81)、穿孔性闌尾炎(勝算比, 5.08; 95%信賴區間, 2.47-10.45)及血球分析中出現不成熟之白血球(勝算比, 6.01; 95%信賴區間, 1.00-35.97)的急性闌尾炎病患較常接受非手術療法。 結論 某些臨床因素的確可以決定急性闌尾炎病患接受手術或非手術治療。 研究二 急性闌尾炎病患,接受非手術療法成功治療後,其影響復發之危險因素 背景 針對急性闌尾炎病患,接受非手術療法成功治療後,其影響復發之危險因素之研究。 方法 收案對象為成功以非手術療法治療急性闌尾炎之病患,經由追蹤是否復發,而利用Kaplan-Meier法估算累積復發率,由Cox迴歸模式找出可能影響復發之危險因素。 結果 共有128位病患成功以非手術療法治療急性闌尾炎,追蹤期間平均為12個月(範圍, 1-90 個月),期間共有20位病患發生復發,而21位病患接受延遲闌尾切除術。復發率約20%,而統計結果發現男性比女性更容易發生復發(勝算比, 3.45; 95%信賴區間, 1.15-10.39),而穿孔性或非穿孔性闌尾炎之復發率並無差異,上述結果若將接受延遲闌尾切除術之患者排除後依然顯著。 結論 急性闌尾炎病患,接受非手術療法成功治療後,其復發率約20%,而男性較女性病患較容易復發。 研究三 急性闌尾炎病患,影響非手術療法失敗之危險因素 背景 針對急性闌尾炎病患,影響非手術療法失敗之危險因素之研究,以希望在決定治療前能先找出易失敗之病患。 方法 若病患接受非手術療法治療急性闌尾炎,然當次住院中轉為手術療法即視為失敗,其臨床變項與接受非手術療法成功治療者相比較。 結果 共有4位病患接受非手術療法治療失敗,統計結果顯示疼痛時間較短(p=0.002)、嗜中性球比例增加(p=0.027)及穿孔性闌尾炎合併膿瘍者(p=0.004)較容易失敗。 結論 急性闌尾炎病患若是合併膿瘍及疼痛時間較短,其接受非手術療法較易失敗。 研究四 急性闌尾炎病患接受非手術療法後,其超音波下發炎緩解之情形 背景 針對急性闌尾炎病患接受非手術療法後,其超音波下緩解情形之研究,希冀除了臨床症狀評估外,利用影像工具超音波來追蹤闌尾之變化。 方法 病患接受非手術療法治療急性闌尾炎後,接受3天一次超音波追蹤檢查,直到超音波下發炎狀況完全緩解。利用線性迴規模式分析達到緩解所需之時間與其他臨床因子是否有其相關性。 結果 共有80位病患完成三天一次之超音波檢查,共474人次,90%病患在30天內超音波影像上即緩解,而糞石之存在與緩解時間延長有正相關性(相關係數, 14.41; 95%信賴區間, 5.76-23.06)。 結論 該研究證實超音波在追縱病患接受非手術療法之應用性,而糞石之存在與緩解時間延長有正相關性。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Recent evidence suggests appendectomy may not the only one management for acute appendicitis. However, previous studies were limited with retrospective design and pediatric population. This prospective study investigates the clinical characteristics and prognostic analysis of adult patients with acute appendicitis following nonoperative management (NOM) and consists of four component studies. Between January 2003 and December 2009, 132 adult patients were enrolled.
PART 1: Matched analysis of NOM v.s. immediate appendectomy Aim: to investigate differences between the clinical parameters of patients treated nonoperatively and those treated with immediate appendectomy to clarify how the selection was made. Methods: By using case-control study, the 2 controls were individually matched to cases on gender, age (5 year-based groups) and recruited within 3 months of their matched case being identified. Conditional logistic regression models were applied. Results: There were 131 cases and 262 controls. Longer duration of pain (OR, 1.48; 95%CI, 1.20-1.81), perforated appendicitis (PA) (OR, 5.08; 95%CI, 2.47-10.45) and presence of bandemia (OR, 6.01; 95%CI, 1.00-35.97) were associated with patients receiving NOM. Conclusions: Selection bias existed in those patients receiving NOM, even though matched by age, gender and time of recruitment. PART 2: Risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following successful NOM Aim: to investigate recurrence rates and identifies predictive factors for recurrence. Methods: Adult patients who received NOM successfully were enrolled. Cumulative recurrence rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox regression models were employed to identify parameters that significantly predict recurrence. Results: 128 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up period was 12 months (range, 1-90 months). Twenty patients developed recurrence and another 21 patients underwent interval appendectomy (IA). Roughly 20% of the adult patients experienced recurrence. No significant difference existed between non-perforated (NPA) and PA groups for recurrence rates. Moreover, male gender was significantly associated with recurrence (3.45; 95% CI, 1.15-10.39). Analytical results remained significant after excluding IA patients. Conclusions: Roughly 20% of the adult patients experienced recurrence. Males were more susceptible than females to recurrent appendicitis. PART 3: Risk factor for failure in the NOM of acute appendicitis Aim: to investigate the predictive factor for failure in the NOM. Methods: Patients were treated surgically during the same hospital stay and considered as treatment failure. The characteristics of these patients were compared with those with success. Results: Four patients (3%) had treatment failure with shorter duration of pain (p=0.002), more percentage of neutrophils (p=0.027) and abscesses (p=0.004). Conclusions: 3% patients did not respond for NOM. Abscesses with shorter duration of pain predicted failure. PART 4: Sonographic resolution following NOM Aim: to investigate the status of appendix following NOM via ultrasound. Methods: The patients received repeat sonographic examinations with 3-day interval until resolution, and the time to achieve resolution was recorded. Linear regression models were used to identify the relationship between the time to achieve sonographic resolution and clinical parameters. Results: 474 sonographic examinations were performed. Seventy-two (90%) patients achieved sonographic resolution less than 30 days. An appendicolith was positively related to the time to achieve resolution (coefficient: 14.41, 95%C.I, 5.76-23.06). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using ultrasound to determine success following NOM. The presence of an appendicolith would delay sonographic resolution of appendicitis | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-07T18:20:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-F92842006-1.pdf: 844535 bytes, checksum: 6de127be214487343708b7ebf25905f6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | CONTENTS
誌謝…………………………………………………………………………..... I 中文摘要……………………………………………………………………..... II 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………..... IV CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………… 1 1.1 Historic aspects………………………………………………………... 1 1.2 Epidemiology…………………………………………………….......... 2 1.3 Pathophysiology……………………………………………………….. 3 1.4 Clinical manifestations………………………………………………… 4 1.5 Differential diagnosis………………………………………………….. 9 1.6 Treatment………………………………………………………………. 10 1.7 Specific aims…………………………………………………………... 14 1.7.1 Part 1: Matched analysis of nonoperative management v.s. immediate appendectomy………………………………… 15 1.7.2 Part 2: Risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following successful nonoperative management……………………. 15 1.7.3 Part 3: Risk factor for failure in the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis………………………………………... 16 1.7.4 Part 4: Sonographic resolution following nonoperative management…………………………………………….. 17 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………….. 18 2.1 Study cohort enrollment ………………………………………………. 18 2.2 Matched analysis of nonoperative management v.s. immediate appendectomy………………………………………………………….. 19 2.3 Nonoperative management…………………………………………….. 19 2.4 Follow-up……………………………………………………………… 20 2.5 Sonographic resolution following nonoperative management………… 21 2.6 Statistical analyses……………………………………………………... 21 2.6.1 Part 1: Matched analysis of nonoperative management v.s. immediate appendectomy……………………………….. 22 2.6.2 Part 2: Risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following successful nonoperative management…………………... 22 2.6.3 Part 3: Risk factor for failure in the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis……………………………………….. 23 2.6.4 Part 4: Sonographic resolution following nonoperative management 24 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS……………………………………………………….. 25 3.1 Part 1: Matched analysis of nonoperative management v.s. immediate appendectomy……………………………….......... 25 3.2 Part 2: Risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following successful nonoperative management…………………............................ 26 3.2.1 Characteristics of enrolled patients…………………………….. 26 3.2.2 Characteristics of patients with recurrence…………………….. 28 3.2.3 Male gender associated with recurrence……………………….. 28 3.2.4 Statistical analyses after excluding IA patients………………… 29 3.2.5 Subgroup analysis for male patients……………………………. 29 3.3 Part 3: Risk factor for failure in the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis…………………………………………….. 30 3.4 Part 4: Sonographic resolution following nonoperative management.. 30 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………... 33 4.1 Part 1: Matched analysis of nonoperative management v.s. immediate appendectomy……………………………….......... 33 4.2 Part 2: Risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following successful nonoperative management…………………............................ 35 4.3 Part 3: Risk factor for failure in the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis…………………………………………….. 38 4.4 Part 4: Sonographic resolution following nonoperative management.. 40 TABLES AND FIGURES……………………………………………………... 44 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 62 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………. 73 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 超音波下發炎緩解 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 闌尾炎 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 非手術療法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 緊急闌尾切除術 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 延遲闌尾切除術 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 復發性闌尾炎 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | nonoperative management | en |
| dc.subject | sonographic resolution. | en |
| dc.subject | recurrent appendicitis | en |
| dc.subject | immediate and interval appendectomy | en |
| dc.subject | appendicitis | en |
| dc.title | 成人急性闌尾炎經非手術治療之臨床特質及預後分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Analysis of Adult Patients with Acute Appendicitis Following Nonoperative Management | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 100-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 蕭朱杏 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王秀伯,方啟泰,林明燦,王豊裕 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 闌尾炎,非手術療法,緊急闌尾切除術,延遲闌尾切除術,復發性闌尾炎,超音波下發炎緩解, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | appendicitis,nonoperative management,immediate and interval appendectomy,recurrent appendicitis,sonographic resolution., | en |
| dc.relation.page | 74 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-01-09 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 流行病學與預防醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 流行病學與預防醫學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 824.74 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
